View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development of a Self-Report Scale to Assess Children's Perceived Physical Literacy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development of a Self-Report Scale to Assess Children's Perceived Physical Literacy
Language: English
Authors: Barnett, Lisa M. (ORCID 0000-0002-9731-625X), Mazzoli, Emiliano (ORCID 0000-0002-9207-4167), Hawkins, Melanie (ORCID 0000-0001-5704-0490), Lander, Natalie (ORCID 0000-0002-0279-3724), Lubans, David R. (ORCID 0000-0002-0204-8257), Caldwell, Sallee, Comis, Pierre, Keegan, Richard J. (ORCID 0000-0003-4253-4492), Cairney, John (ORCID 0000-0003-2856-3967), Dudley, Dean (ORCID 0000-0001-5140-9533), Stewart, Rebecca L., Long, Gareth, Schranz, Natasha (ORCID 0000-0002-7022-9228), Brown, Trent D., Salmon, Jo (ORCID 0000-0002-4734-6354)
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2022 27(1):91-116.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Measurement Techniques, Self Concept Measures, Children, Multiple Literacies, Psychomotor Skills, Physical Activity Level, Pictorial Stimuli, Sex, Race, Responses, Test Construction, Test Validity, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1849596
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Background: The construct of physical literacy is gaining traction internationally and yet measurement of physical literacy is in its infancy. This paper describes the development of a pictorial child report scale of perceived physical literacy based on the comprehensive Australian Physical Literacy Framework, which includes 30 elements within four domains (physical, psychological, cognitive and social). Methods: An expert reference committee with academic and industry representatives from physical education, sport and education was formed to provide input to each stage of the process. Qualitative research methods were used to (a) determine a character that was gender neutral, not representative of a particular race or ethnicity and appealing to children, and (b) the content (i.e. relationship between item images, wording and format with the intended construct) and response processes (i.e. interpretation of items) of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest). A total of 17 children aged 4-12 years were interviewed as part of the study. Results: A 'bunny' character was preferred by children. Overall, children interpreted most images as intended by the researchers, and, in many cases, without having to hear the words that went with the images. Some of the image scenarios were amended and redrawn according to the suggestions received from children and the expert reference group. Discussion: This study has provided qualitative evidence based on the content of the PL-C Quest elements and domains, on the ways respondents understand, and interpret the items. This is the first step towards the development and testing of a pictorial instrument to comprehensively measure children's self-perceived physical literacy.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1323388
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEF_pJaSgC3RChwngUGCZZCAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPR8QCDTDqKnAv9dDgIBEICBmxXxILxqK1IPra5ua2ZIfLwbb6e_3BGKH95YcB-SJzWX74snEs3o8s4ypEhTw76UQqX48I3KquYp6F08flQmMFLLdBuezIYin_YhXDpgiQX1sw7XWRay1PfMENPKVRpWFPugWm0qD7569odHjU3l2LlxACteD6O0NV7xQgrvQ6gSZf26moZIUgZ6_nyuJpp2izZp2qMo3RgEPU0G
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0153952168;z3x01jan.22;2021Dec07.02:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0153952168-1">Development of a self-report scale to assess children's perceived physical literacy </title> <p>Background: The construct of physical literacy is gaining traction internationally and yet measurement of physical literacy is in its infancy. This paper describes the development of a pictorial child report scale of perceived physical literacy based on the comprehensive Australian Physical Literacy Framework, which includes 30 elements within four domains (physical, psychological, cognitive and social). Methods: An expert reference committee with academic and industry representatives from physical education, sport and education was formed to provide input to each stage of the process. Qualitative research methods were used to (a) determine a character that was gender neutral, not representative of a particular race or ethnicity and appealing to children, and (b) the content (i.e. relationship between item images, wording and format with the intended construct) and response processes (i.e. interpretation of items) of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest). A total of 17 children aged 4–12 years were interviewed as part of the study. Results: A 'bunny' character was preferred by children. Overall, children interpreted most images as intended by the researchers, and, in many cases, without having to hear the words that went with the images. Some of the image scenarios were amended and redrawn according to the suggestions received from children and the expert reference group. Discussion: This study has provided qualitative evidence based on the content of the PL-C Quest elements and domains, on the ways respondents understand, and interpret the items. This is the first step towards the development and testing of a pictorial instrument to comprehensively measure children's self-perceived physical literacy.</p> <p>Keywords: Movement skill; pictorial; face validity; instrument development‌; physical activity‌</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The notion of physical literacy is gaining interest from a number of countries as a potential mechanism for understanding development of the physical self (Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref1">56</reflink>]). Whitehead proposed that physical literacy was a holistic concept (Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref2">55</reflink>]), with pleasure likely when one is in harmony with surroundings and integration of the mental and physical body is realised (Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). The International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>]) defined physical literacy as 'the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life'. In this way, the concept was interpreted as a mechanism for children to be active. In Australia, an extensive consultation process with experts and relevant stakeholders (Keegan, Barnett, and Dudley [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]; Keegan, Dudley, and Barnett [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref6">33</reflink>]) was undertaken to develop a definition that would resonate with Australian stakeholders. This resulted in the release of the Australian Physical Literacy Framework (APLF) in August 2019 (Sport Australia [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref7">43</reflink>]). Physical literacy was characterised as the integration of physical, psychological, social and cognitive capabilities that help us live active, healthy and fulfilling lifestyles (Sport Australia [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]). The APLF extends the IPLA definition, as it covers four domains (physical, psychological, social and cognitive) and includes 30 elements within these domains. The physical domain has 12 elements, the psychological and cognitive domains each have seven elements, and the social domain has four elements. The elements are interrelated with each other and considered equally important in the development of physical literacy (Sport Australia [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some suggest that such a broad holistic concept should not or cannot be measured (Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref10">54</reflink>]), but others propose measurement is important to enable understanding of children's physical literacy profiles (Tremblay and Lloyd [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref11">49</reflink>]). This debate centres on the idea of the construct as a whole, as there are existing measurement options available for many of the elements (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]). Physical literacy measurement is in its infancy, with few measurement attempts of physical literacy across physical, cognitive and affective domains (Edwards et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). Understanding where children are on their respective physical literacy journeys (Green, Roberts, Sheehan and Keegan, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]), will help educators and practitioners to know where and when to intervene to assist children to further develop particular domains and elements of physical literacy. We suggest this knowledge followed by subsequent intervention will increase the likelihood of a child being physically active for life.</p> <p>Measurement of physical literacy depends on how the construct is defined and operationalised (Edwards et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]). When considering the APLF, some elements lend themselves to objective assessment: for example, movement skills (e.g. running) and object manipulation (e.g. catching a ball) in the physical domain. There are many tools available already to measure motor competence (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]), with researchers and practitioners needing to determine their measurement purpose and properties in order to select an appropriate measure (Hulteen et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref17">27</reflink>]; Bardid et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]). Other elements of physical literacy lend themselves to self-report, for instance, those elements that fall within the psychological domain, such as engagement and enjoyment, confidence and motivation (Owen et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref19">41</reflink>]). For each single element of physical literacy, it is possible to work through a decision-making process to identify whether, and which, existing tools could be used. Factors to consider include the purpose of the assessment (e.g. population monitoring, evaluation or understanding a small group of learners), the age/developmental group and if subjective or objective assessment is most suitable (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]). However, if the aim is to understand the complete construct of physical literacy, then selecting different measurement options for each element does not lend itself to consistent or comparable evaluation across and within domains and/or elements as pre-existing measures often use different formats, scoring scales, protocols, etc.</p> <p>Considering that some of the elements in the APLF are difficult to measure objectively, a childhood self-report physical literacy assessment could be appropriate. In fact, systematic review evidence shows children's physical self-perceptions are important to investigate because they relate to physical activity behaviour (Babic et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]). Furthermore, understanding children's self-perceptions is important – even if they do not align closely with actual abilities. For instance, Belgium adolescents (13 year olds) with low actual motor competence but high physical self-perceptions were more physically active than adolescents with low actual motor competence who accurately estimated themselves (De Meester et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ideally, such an assessment needs to be suitable for some children of primary school age with limited literacy levels. Three studies using pictorial scales designed for young children (8 years and under) have demonstrated associations between a child's self-assessment of (various types of) physical competence and objectively measured physical activity. In young Australian children, physical activity levels as a pre-schooler were associated with perceived movement skill scores – skills such as running, catching and jumping – at age 5 years (Barnett, Salmon, and Hesketh [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]). Two cross-sectional studies demonstrated moderate- to-vigorous intensity physical activity was associated with perceived play skill competence in Australian children aged 5–8 years (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]) and perceived physical competence in Indonesian preschool-aged children (3–6 years) (Famelia et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>To assess self-perceived physical literacy as a complete construct, a tool that assesses all relevant elements (according to the particular definition) is desirable to gain a comprehensive picture of a child's perception of their physical literacy levels. Yet, very few self-assessments of physical literacy for children exist. The recently developed Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAY) tools are one example (Cairney et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). Some items in the PLAY tool are aligned with the APLF (i.e. movement skills, fitness, confidence, knowledge, enjoyment and motivation), but this would leave 14 elements in the Australian framework not explicitly addressed. Also, the PLAY self-tool is not a pictorial assessment.</p> <p>To address this gap in the research, we set out to develop a self-report pictorial scale, the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire, abbreviated to PL-C Quest, to assess children's physical literacy, as defined by the APLF. This study is based on contemporary validity testing theory, and follows the <emph>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</emph> (the <emph>Standards</emph>) (American Educational Research Association et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]). The <emph>Standards</emph> outlines five sources of validity evidence that form the foundation of validation practice (American Educational Research Association et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>]): test content; response processes; internal structure; external variables; and the consequences of testing. The specific aims of this study were to: explore the first two sources of validity: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) describe the content development of the new instrument, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) investigate the response processes of the intended end-users, school-aged children between 4 and 12 years old.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-3">Method</hd> <p>This study uses qualitative research methods to investigate the content of the test (i.e. relationship between item images, wording and format with the intended construct), and response processes (i.e. interpretation of items by children), as measured against the intended interpretation of each item (Hawkins, Elsworth, and Osborne [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]). Three academic staff from one Australian university led the scale development: two were from the health faculty (one with expertise in children's motor skill development and one with expertise in children's physical activity), and the third was an academic from education with expertise in children's motor skill interventions. We convened an expert reference group to provide advice and recommendations for scale content. This group consisted of Sport Australia representatives, representatives from Australian Physical Education organisations, four academics involved in developing the APLF (two in faculties of education, one in psychology, and one employed through government), and an international academic expert in physical literacy.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-4">Content of the test</hd> <p>The purpose of the first meeting of the expert reference group was to consider: whether (i) the main character in the pictorial scale should depict genders/races or if they should be gender/race neutral (see <emph>Depiction of the character)</emph>; (ii) how each of the 30 items could be pictorially represented (see <emph>Depiction of the items</emph>); and (iii) the scoring response format (see <emph>Response options</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-5">Depiction of the character</hd> <p>Previous pictorial child self-assessments have used boy and girl images to aid in child identification with the image (Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]; Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]; Tietjens et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref34">48</reflink>]). While this strategy can help most children identify with the image, it relies on a child identifying as male or female. Of late, researchers and practitioners have increasingly recognised the importance of developing inclusive processes or materials for those with varying gender identities. For instance, in the Australian state of Victoria (in which this study was conducted) the recent school Gender Identity policy states that: 'The school management plan should cater to the student's gender identity' (Victorian State Government [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref35">51</reflink>]). Thus, it could be problematic to ask a child to identify with one of only two options: a boy or girl image. Not all pictorial scales for children have used boy or girl images. Some have used a child image that is said to be perceived as neither male nor female (Murcia and Pérez [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]; Döring et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]; Valla et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]); although, only one published scale could be located with an image that truly appeared to be gender neutral (Döring et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]). Some scales have used a mixture of male and female images across the items (Parrish et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>]); however, the risk with this approach is that a child might identify with items differently because of the gender the child is portrayed as for that particular item.</p> <p>Authors of pictorial scales have developed images for different racial profiles to help children from diverse cultural backgrounds to identify with the images (Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]). Or, similar to the approach above with gender (Parrish et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]), authors have had different images for each item to reflect a range of ethnicities (Economos et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]; Parrish et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]). Australia is a multicultural nation with nearly half (49%) the population born overseas, or with one or both parents born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]). Furthermore, in 2016, there were over 300 separately identified languages spoken in Australian homes (Australian Bureau of Statistics [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]). As such, we did not consider it viable nor desirable to develop several versions of 'cartoon' children according to racial profiling. Neither did we consider it desirable to change the sex and race of the child across items due to the risk of a child identifying with one item more or less than another. Therefore, the expert reference group unanimously agreed that for this new scale the character should attempt to be gender and racially ambiguous. The steps involved to develop the main character are outlined in Box 1.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-6">Box 1. Steps involved in character development for the physical literacy self-assessment.</hd> <p>1. Artist briefed to draw three gender- and race-neutral characters.</p> <ulist> <item>2. The character options (bunny, alien, and humanoid) were developed in the form of a model sheet. Each character needed to be able to represent human-like actions. A model sheet designs the character from four different angles and includes proportions, facial expressions and some key poses. Key poses explore how the character moves and how well the design is able to tell the 'story'. The bunny was the most like a typical cartoon character – with a bulbous body and skinny arms/legs and small hands/feet. Some elements of recognisably Manga faces for younger kids (more detailed eyes plus a funny mouth) were used as inspiration and a pouch was used for fun and visual interest – which also kept the bunny decidedly non-animal. The second humanoid character combined an ovoid face and eyes that were more human, with an animal/stuffed toy nose. With long arms and legs and swooping shapes, it could create bold, highly dynamic movements. It wore a tunic, pants, shoes and beanie. At five heads tall, this was closest in size to about a 7-year-old. The third alien character was four heads tall (like a 5-year-old) with little snail feelers to show expression, exaggerated and more human-like hands, and no clothing at all. This character was the most human/animal hybrid design.</item> <item>3. The artist researched character neutral and non-binary character designs (e.g. Thing 1 and 2 from Dr Seuss' Cat in the Hat series, characters from Gumby, the IKEA catalogue character, Ren and Stimpy, Pokémon characters, etc.). Once the artist sketched ideas, these design issues were reinforced. For instance, while many children wear shorts, t-shirts and sneakers, in a cartoon these items of clothing instantly read as 'male'. Similarly, long hair 'reads' as female and baseball caps 'read' as male. Thus, it became clear that the design options had to be without hair of any kind, have no gendered clothing, and include features that were not 'too' human or animal like. In the chosen character (the bunny), instead of hair, long Bugs Bunny-type ears worked to express emotion, such as up and alert for happiness and droopy and down for sadness. The use of the pouch rather than clothing also kept the character gender neutral. Orange was selected for the colour of the bunny rather than more traditionally gendered options such as pink or blue. The background characters could be any gender, so they were kept as plain as possible, taking inspiration from the human/animal hybrids of Carl Barks' Duckburg (Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge 'universe' in general).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0153952168-7">Depiction of the items</hd> <p>Table 1 details the Sport Australia definition for the 30 elements. To help construct the image and wording for each item, we first conducted a search to see if that item had been previously self-assessed in children. If there was no pictorial assessment, then written assessments for children and/or adolescents were consulted. Our search extended beyond the physical activity and sport literature (i.e. it also included education and social sciences databases on the EBSCOhost platform) to ensure that the content of the item reflected the intended original construct. For example, if there was a self-report survey assessing emotional self-regulation, this was consulted to ensure that the item wording chosen to reflect emotional self-regulation in a physical literacy context still reflected the original intent of this construct.</p> <p>Table 1. Definition according to Sport Australia for each of the 30 physical literacy elements.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Sport Australia Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Physical</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Movement Skills</td><td>Movement skills that allow a person to move (land, water, ice, etc.), from one place to another</td></tr><tr><td>Moving with equipment</td><td>Movement skills used to move on, in or with equipment from one place to another</td></tr><tr><td>Object Manipulation</td><td>Movement skills that use a body part(s) to move or manipulate an object</td></tr><tr><td>Cardiovascular Endurance</td><td>Ability of the heart and lungs to deliver oxygen to working muscles</td></tr><tr><td>Muscular Endurance</td><td>Ability of a muscle(s) to repeatedly exert force over a sustained period of time</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination</td><td>Ability to move different body parts in a controlled, smooth and efficient manner</td></tr><tr><td>Stability/Balance</td><td>Movement skills involving balance and weight transfer</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>Capacity of a joint or muscle to move through its full range of motion</td></tr><tr><td>Agility</td><td>Ability to quickly change body position and/or direction of body</td></tr><tr><td>Strength</td><td>Ability to carry out work against a resistance</td></tr><tr><td>Reaction Time</td><td>Length of time taken to respond to a given stimulus</td></tr><tr><td>Speed</td><td>Ability to move quickly across the ground, through the water or air or move limbs rapidly</td></tr><tr><td>Psychological</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Motivation</td><td>Reasons for engaging in movement and physical activity in response to internal or external factors</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation (emotions)</td><td>Ability to manage emotions and resulting behaviours in relation to movement and physical activity</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation (physical)</td><td>Recognising and managing physical signals such as pain, fatigue and exertion</td></tr><tr><td>Self-perception</td><td>Understands self in relation to movement and physical activity and recognises personal strengths and areas for development</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence</td><td>A belief in self-worth and ability to perform in movement and physical activity</td></tr><tr><td>Engagement and Enjoyment</td><td>Positive emotions and experiences derived from movement and physical activity</td></tr><tr><td>Connection to place</td><td>Appreciation and connection to the environment, both built and natural in relation to movement and physical activity</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethics</td><td>Moral principles that govern a person's behaviour relating to fairness and justice, inclusion, equity, integrity and respect</td></tr><tr><td>Relationships</td><td>Building and maintaining respectful relationships that enable a person to interact effectively with others</td></tr><tr><td>Collaboration</td><td>Social skills for successful interaction with others, including: communication, cooperation, leadership and conflict resolution</td></tr><tr><td>Society and Culture</td><td>Appreciation of cultural values which exist within groups, organisations, and communities</td></tr><tr><td>Cognitive</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Perceptual Awareness</td><td>Tacit knowledge used to quickly recognise the environment and make accurate decisions: based on experiences, observations, emotions and intuition</td></tr><tr><td>Content knowledge</td><td>Factual knowledge a person can understand and convey; often important in recognition, recall and planning</td></tr><tr><td>Rules</td><td>Explicit or understood regulations and principles governing conduct or procedure within movement and physical activities</td></tr><tr><td>Reasoning</td><td>Consciously making sense of things by verifying facts and applying logic to construct, change or justify practices and beliefs</td></tr><tr><td>Strategy and planning</td><td>Strategy and planning describes how set goals will be achieved using reflection and resources available</td></tr><tr><td>Tactics</td><td>Planned and ad hoc decisions and actions, employed in the moment for the pursuit of goal/s</td></tr><tr><td>Safety and Risk</td><td>Understanding of risks, risk-management and safety considerations for self and others in movement contexts</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We discussed each item from the APLF in the first expert reference group to identify how they could be pictorially represented. One of the issues is the challenge in terms of having the visuals clear enough, with a particular context, so the child understands that context – versus the risk the child has not had experience in that context. For instance, if a child has never been to the beach, played in nature and/or has no backyard, how will they respond to those items compared to a child who has? Therefore, the expert panel debated whether the images should be as general as possible so most children could identify with them. The risk with this approach was that the images may become too abstract for the child to respond to, or that, only generalised locations familiar to nearly all children were depicted (e.g. a school playground). In the end, the expert reference group agreed that it was preferable to provide a broad range of contexts, settings, locations and experiences across the 30 items, because this approach better reflected the broad intent of the construct of physical literacy, as defined by the APLF.</p> <p>This decision meant that both land and water examples would be portrayed. Ice and snow were not considered as relevant to the Australian context and were not included.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>] As such, the reference group discussed a diverse range of situations for the 30 proposed items. For each item, the definition in the APLF provided a referent point. The core team then drafted these situations and circulated them to the expert reference group for comment. The aim was for the context (e.g. <emph>active travel, play, structured</emph>), setting (<emph>built environment, classroom, home, nature, physical education, sport</emph>), location (e.g. <emph>backyard, beach, bushland, park, playground, neighbourhood, rock wall, school hall, school oval, swimming pool, netball court</emph>) and the skill/game to vary as much as possible across the 30 items. The steps involved in developing item content are outlined in Box 2.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-8">Box 2. Steps involved in item content development for the physical literacy self-assessment i...</hd> <p>1. A draft of potential images for each of the 30 items was generated by the lead investigator, along with a suggested context for each item informed by relevant literature. This was circulated to each member of the expert reference group for feedback.</p> <ulist> <item>2. Feedback was discussed with the lead academics and Sport Australia and a re-draft of wording and suggested content for each item was circulated back to the expert reference group for approval.</item> <item>3. The lead investigator briefed the artist and a 'rough' version of images was produced for each item.</item> <item>4. Images were then tested with child respondents using a one on one interview format (described in <emph>Child interviewing process – Phase 2</emph>).</item> <item>5. Once feedback was received from children, this feedback was collated and sent to the expert reference group to add their feedback.</item> <item>6. Feedback was summarised by the lead investigator and the artist was briefed on changes to items (<emph>Testing of Scenarios – Phase 2</emph>).</item> <item>7. The images were redrawn by the artist and circulated again to the expert reference group.</item> <item>8. Changes were again collated and sent to the artist to produce the final drawings. One image (i.e. Scenario 15) was redrawn completely at this point.</item> <item>9. Scenario 15 was re-tested with the new images with a smaller number of children.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0153952168-9">Response options</hd> <p>A well-tested form of pictorial scale for young children involves, for each item, the child being shown two images that they choose between (e.g. 'This boy can't run very fast, This boy can run pretty fast') (Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]). Then the child is asked to clarify how much they agree with the image they have chosen, (i.e. if they picked the poorer performance they would then be asked 'are you not very fast or sort of fast?', or if they picked the better performance they would be asked, 'really fast' or 'pretty fast?'); resulting in a 4-point adjectival scale (Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]; Tietjens et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>]; Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>]). This approach is similar to that taken in well used non-pictorial scales that aim to assess physical self-perception in older children, such as the Physical Self-Perception Profile (Fox and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref52">20</reflink>]). In the PSPP, the participant is asked to first choose the statement that applies to them: e.g. 'Some people feel that they are not very good when it comes to playing sports' BUT 'Others feel that they are really good at just about every sport'. Then children are asked to pick how true the statement is for them: i.e. 'sort of true', 'really true' (Fox and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]). Another pictorial scale type for children has three images for each item depicting a progression, with the child picking one image, resulting in a 3-point scale (Murcia and Pérez [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>The large number of desired items in the proposed physical literacy assessment (<emph>n</emph> = 30) meant that the two-image format per item (e.g. Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]) seemed a more feasible choice for young children than the three-image format per item (e.g. Murcia and Pérez [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). Otherwise, children would need to examine 90 images to complete the assessment and be tasked with trying to detect the nuanced differences between each set of three images, a very demanding task for young children. Thus, the assessment was designed to align with the response format of the PSPP where two statements are presented with children needing to choose which statement best pertained to them: i.e. <emph>Some people are ... , Others ... </emph> (Fox and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]). This survey type has been criticised in that some children misinterpret the instructions and only respond to statements on one side (e.g. the left) rather than choosing which statement best fits them (Marsh et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]). However, the proposed physical literacy assessment was designed to be administered in an interview format where a statement with each image is read out to children <emph>in addition</emph> to the pictorial representation. This format has been used successfully in other pictorial assessments (Valla et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref59">50</reflink>]; Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>]; Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]), and is based on cognitive theory that audio as well as visuals aid understanding in children (Valla et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref62">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>We gave careful consideration to the stem for each domain. In pictorial assessments for self-perceived physical competence, the stem 'this boy is good at ... this boy is not so good at ... ' is used (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]; Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]). Given that our expert panel had agreed on using gender and race neutral images for the new physical literacy scale, then the question wording would need to refer to 'some children', rather than to 'this boy' or 'this girl'. As such, the stem phrases for the 12 physical element items were 'Some children are pretty good at ... ' and 'Other children are not so good at ....'. The stems for the other domains reflected the same approach but in relation to the domain of interest. As such, for the psychological domain, the stems for the seven items were 'Some children feel ... ' and 'Other children do not feel'. The stems for the four social domain items were 'Some children want ... ' and 'Other children do not want'; and for the seven cognitive items, they were 'Some children think ... ' and 'Other children do not think ....'. While the terms 'pretty good/not so good' for physical, 'feel' for psychological, and 'think' for cognitive appear to match the intent of the domains, the use of 'want' for the social domain is less intuitive. 'Want' was chosen as the stem for the social domain because the social situations reflect choice around what is preferred.</p> <p>Similar to other pictorial scales, for the physical domain, the central character was drawn each time with a neutral facial expression so that the child would not be influenced by a child appearing happier and more confident in the better performance (Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]). For the other domains, the facial expressions varied according to the feeling that the element was designed to elicit in the child, e.g. for the confidence element, the character had a confident bold look in the confident image and a more uncertain expression in the not so confident image.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-10">The response processes of respondents</hd> <p>The purpose of this aspect of the study was to conduct interviews to gather data from a sample of children about firstly which character they preferred (Phase 1) and secondly, how they understood and perceived the intent of the images (i.e. data based on response processes) (Phase 2).</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-11">Recruitment</hd> <p>A convenience sample of primary school age children (between 4 and 12) was recruited. A smaller number of children were initially recruited for Phase 1 but this number was expanded for Phase 2 to ensure a broader understanding from children as to the scale content. Children were eligible to participate in either Phases 1 or 2 or both. The study received ethics approval from the University Ethics Committee. Informed written consent for the participants was sought from parents/guardians. After consenting to their child's involvement in the study, parents were asked to complete a demographic survey of questions about their country of origin, language spoken at home, education, occupation and their child's sex and date of birth. Additionally, parents were asked to complete a questionnaire – the Children's Leisure Activities Study Survey (CLASS) (Telford et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref66">46</reflink>]). CLASS asks about a child's usual physical activities and about non-physical activities (i.e. homework and TV). Only the physical activity questions were asked and reported on.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-12">Sample characteristics</hd> <p>Overall, 17 participants between 4 and 12 years old (mean age at the first assessment = 9.5 ± 2.4 years; 59% boys) were recruited. Eight children took part in Phase 1. In Phase 2, three of these children participated again and nine additional children were interviewed.</p> <p>Parents were mostly born in Australia (71%), and had a higher education degree and employed part-time or full-time (82%). The main language spoken at home was English (94%). Children's moderate to vigorous physical activity engagement ranged from 30 to 240 min per day. Children's characteristics and their involvement in the testing phases are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Participant characteristics and involvement in the study.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Participants</td><td>MVPA (min)</td><td>Involvement</td></tr><tr><td>ID</td><td>Age (years)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>Sex</td><td>Weekly</td><td>Daily<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">b</xref></td><td>Phase 1</td><td>Phase 2</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Child 1</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">210</td><td char=".">30</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 2</td><td char=".">8</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">650</td><td char=".">93</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 3</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">915</td><td char=".">131</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 4</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">1380</td><td char=".">197</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Child 5</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">1410</td><td char=".">201</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Child 6</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">1200</td><td char=".">171</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Child 7</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">1680</td><td char=".">240</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Child 8</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">614</td><td char=".">88</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Child 9</td><td char=".">7</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">455</td><td char=".">65</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 10</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">945</td><td char=".">135</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 11</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">825</td><td char=".">118</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 12</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">1000</td><td char=".">143</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 13</td><td char=".">8</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">295</td><td char=".">42</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 14</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">535</td><td char=".">76</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 15</td><td char=".">6</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">1130</td><td char=".">161</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 16</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Boy</td><td char=".">840</td><td char=".">120</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Child 17</td><td char=".">7</td><td>Girl</td><td char=".">600</td><td char=".">86</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Child age at first assessment.</p> <p>2 Rounded. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-13">Child interview process</hd> <p>We used cognitive interviewing based on the 'think aloud' methodology (Valla et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]) for the two phases of interviewing. This interviewing approach helps the investigator to understand the cognitive processes an individual goes through when thinking about and formulating responses to survey items. The child is asked to verbalise their thoughts while responding to an item. Other self-assessments for young children have successfully followed similar processes (Moulton et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref68">38</reflink>]; Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>In <emph>phase 1</emph>, children were asked to describe the gender, expressions and actions of the draft characters (animal-like, alien-like and human-like features) and to state their preferred character. For this initial phase of testing, children were asked to look at the images, one at the time, and verbalise their impressions, as well as describe the depicted facial expressions and actions for each character. At the end of the interview, children were asked to select their favourite character, providing details on the reasons for their choice. For each character, the images were presented in a consistent order each time (i.e. character standing from different angles, facial expression and the character executing some actions), but the order in which the characters were presented varied. Children were asked to think their thoughts aloud as they answered each question. Prompt statements such as these were used as needed: <emph>Is this a boy or girl or can't you tell?, Why do you think that?, Do you like this character?, Why do you think that?, What do you think of each of these facial expressions? What do you think the character is doing here?</emph> The character that children most commonly recognised as neither boy nor girl and that they preferred was selected.</p> <p>In <emph>phase 2</emph>, some months later, once images were created, children were shown each of the 30 physical literacy scenarios with the selected character, each depicting two images: one image showed a proficient performance and another a non-proficient performance. The process involved (i) asking children to describe what they saw in each image, (ii) reading aloud the wording prepared for each image in the scenario, (iii) asking children what they thought of the image after having heard the wording, and (iv) asking children what they would change in the images to make them look more aligned with the words, i.e. the intent of the image (Osborne et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref70">40</reflink>]). The interview questions were designed to prompt children to explain their understanding of what was happening in each image (Valla et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]). After describing the interview process to the children, the interviewer started by showing the first images and asking the children: <emph>What is happening in this picture? What is happening in the other picture?</emph> Prompt questions were: <emph>Why do you think that? What do you think the difference is between these two pictures?</emph> After the children had given their responses, the interviewer said: <emph>Now, I am going to add the words that go with these pictures</emph>. The interviewer then asked: <emph>What do you think now about what is happening in each picture?</emph> The final question was: <emph>Is there anything that we should change in the pictures to make them match with the words better?</emph> Narrative responses from the children were analysed against the definitions for each item to determine if the children were engaging with the item intent and therefore with the construct of the physical literacy element (Hawkins, Elsworth, and Osborne [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>]). Images were returned to the artist to redraw if children's responses did not respond to the intended situation. We also conducted an analysis on the children's responses (using the transcripts) to the gender of the main character in the 30 items in Phase 2. Each time the child referred to the main character this was recorded as neutral [they (singular), this thing, this one, the other one, it, the character, this, this person, themselves (singular)], male [he, his, him], female [she, hers] or both male and female [he or she]. A chi square comparison of proportions was performed to assess whether children's own gender was associated with their language around the gender of the main character.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153952168-15">Character identification – Phase 1</hd> <p>Overall, the results from cognitive interviews suggested that the animal-like character (similar to a rabbit/bunny) was the children's favourite. Most of the children (<emph>n</emph> = 6; 75%) rated this character as more positive, fun, happy and better looking than the other two characters (humanoid and alien). Children's responses from Phase 1 are presented in Table 3 according to the children's perceptions of gender, expression, action and preference for each character.</p> <p>Table 3. Child feedback regarding the character selection.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Participant characteristics</td><td>Character 1 Animal</td><td>Character 2 Human</td><td>Character 3 Alien</td><td>Favourite character</td></tr><tr><td>ID</td><td>Age (years)</td><td>Sex</td><td>Like/Dislike</td><td>Character's gender</td><td>Like/Dislike</td><td>Character's gender</td><td>Like/Dislike</td><td>Character's gender</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Child 1</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Girl</td><td>Like it</td><td>Cannot tell</td><td>Like it but not the nose</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like</td><td>I would say a boy but can't really tell</td><td>Animal</td></tr><tr><td>Child 2</td><td char=".">8</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like it</td><td>Cannot tell</td><td>Like it</td><td>Cannot tell</td><td>Like</td><td>Cannot tell</td><td>Human</td></tr><tr><td>Child 3</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like it</td><td>Cannot tell</td><td>Like it with the thin outline</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like it but maybe in colour</td><td>The ticker line more like a girl</td><td>Animal</td></tr><tr><td>Child 4</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Girl</td><td>Like it</td><td>Looks a bit more like a girl, but still it could be either</td><td>Not sure</td><td>It could be either.</td><td>Like</td><td>Looks a bit more like a boy, but still it could be either</td><td>Animal</td></tr><tr><td>Child 5</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like it</td><td>Looks a bit more like a girl, but still it could be either</td><td>Like it</td><td>Looks a bit more like a boy, but still it could be either</td><td>Like</td><td>It could be either.</td><td>Animal</td></tr><tr><td>Child 6</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like it</td><td>It could be either.</td><td>Like it</td><td>Boy</td><td>Like</td><td>Looks like a girl because of the posture.</td><td>Human</td></tr><tr><td>Child 7</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Girl</td><td>Like it</td><td>Cannot tell</td><td>Not sure</td><td>Looks a bit more like a boy, but still it could be either</td><td>Like</td><td>It could be either.</td><td>Animal</td></tr><tr><td>Child 8</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Girl</td><td>Like it</td><td>Boy</td><td>Dislike it</td><td>Looks like a girl wearing a mask</td><td>Dislike it</td><td>Boy</td><td>Animal</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0153952168-16">Character 1 – animal-like</hd> <p>All the children liked the animal like character and reported various qualities, such as cuteness, curiosity, and friendliness. For example, a child reported that the character:</p> <p>Looks like a cute person. I think he's good because people sometimes say a rabbit is like a soft rabbit, they're happy animals. I think it's pretty good and it looks like she's always looking around at something and she's a curious person. (Child 6, boy, 10 years old).</p> <p> <emph>Most</emph> children identified the character as gender neutral. Additional physical qualities were also attributed to this character, as noted by some:</p> <p>I like it, because it's a rabbit, and rabbits are really fast. And sneaky! (Child 7, girl 12 years old)</p> <p>I think he's really adorable. 'Cause big eyes usually make characters pretty adorable; big ears and a smile which usually does always make a character adorable. (Child 1, girl, 11 years old)</p> <p>A few comments were also made in relation to the character's garment: 'I like how it has a little box there [pouch]. I think it's sort of like a handbag or something like that.' (Child 5, boy, 10 years old)</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-17">Character 2 – human-like</hd> <p>Children also generally liked the human-like character, as noted by a child who stated: 'I like the postures and stuff. Because the way it's moving and stuff.' (Child 2, boy, 8 years old)</p> <p>However, some children appeared uncertain in relation to some physical attributes of this character: 'He's sort of like a human and an animal, like he's got a weird nose. It looks like a dog.' (Child 6, boy, 10 years old)</p> <p>Most children identified this character as a boy. Some also found similarities with a pre-existing cartoon: 'It looks a lot like Where's Wally?' (Child 3, boy, 11 years old)</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-18">Character 3 – alien-like</hd> <p>The alien-like character was interesting and attractive to most, although some noted that the character looked somewhat plain. For example, one child stated:</p> <p>Okay, this one's hilarious. I don't know I just think of it, it looks a bit hilarious, I don't know why but it's like antennae, duck, fly – duck, insect hybrid thing, I don't know. I'd say interesting, cute. But I think also lacking a little bit of detail. From the head and down. Not really detail but it would be nice if they could, like, add a scarf with the little thingumajig on the end strands on the end; that might look nice. I'd just say it's missing something here. (Child 1, girl, 11 years old).</p> <p>Other children also expressed contrasting feelings for this character. For example, one child reported: 'Yeah, looks pretty cool. I reckon it looks pretty cool. How he stands.' But then said: 'I don't really like those [antennas]. Only because I don't really think it fits the character.' (Child 2, boy, 8 years old). One child thought that the character was childish and pointed out that it looked a bit out of shape: 'It looks like an alien. It looks overweight. It looks like a bird or a creature from a kids' show.' (Child 8, girl, 10 years old).</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-19">Favourite character</hd> <p>Six out of eight children participating in this phase selected Character 1 as their favourite. Two children preferred Character 2, and no one chose Character 3. The following are some example quotes of the explanations provided with the selection: 'My favourite is Character 1 because it is happy a lot of the time and looks positive and optimistic.' (Child 4, Girl, 11 years old). 'I think this one is my favourite because he's really adorable [Character 1]. For instance without the pouch and the strap, I think it would be little bit plain like this character [pointing at Character 3].' (Child 1, girl, 11 years old).</p> <p>I like Character 1 the most because she's just, like, active and doing good things that you should do in your life. I don't think there's really anything that I don't like about them [other characters], it's just that I feel like this one [Character 1] has more good than these ones. (Child 6, boy, 10 years old)</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-20">Testing of Scenarios – Phase 2</hd> <p>Overall, children interpreted most images as intended by the researchers, and, in many cases, without having to hear the words that go with the image. Some of the image scenarios that appeared confusing for children (e.g. perceptual awareness) were amended according to the suggestions received from children and the expert reference group. Only one scenario – i.e. physical self-regulation, which initially depicted a character continuing to play football (Australian Rules) after the first signs of physical exertion versus a player immediately giving up – was either not interpreted as intended (often confused with cardiovascular endurance) or only vaguely identified as 'the character playing football'. In response to this finding, the scenario idea for this element was changed to pacing oneself whilst walking up a hill and its images were re-designed entirely.</p> <p>Children's interpretations matching or not matching the intent of each scenario are summarised in Figure 1. Table 4 depicts feedback per element from children and the expert reference group with example quotes and changes made accordingly. Table 5 shows each physical literacy element, a description of the final images and the related wording and the relevant literature that assisted in shaping the final item. Figure 2 shows an example of the final images for the relationship element (a being inclusive and b not being inclusive).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Summary chart of children's responses matching/not matching with each scenario intent description.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. (a) Example Element Relationships. 'Some children want to invite other kids to play with them'. (b) Example Element Relationships. 'Other children do not want to invite other kids to play with them'.</p> <p>Table 4. Summary of child feedback regarding each physical literacy element.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Summary of child feedback</td><td>Example quotes from children</td><td>Any changes made to images</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Movement Skills:</italic> All children could see images were depicting a proficient versus a non-proficient performance in the execution of a motor skill (hopping), with half interpreting the images as intended without having to hear associated words. The image depicting a low proficient hopper was sometimes interpreted as walking.</td><td><italic>'I think that this bunny is playing in the playground; well, the playground is over there. But he's playing hopscotch, on this hopscotch thing. This one [proficient] is actually hopping. This one [non-proficient] is just standing still. This one [proficient] is the better one. I don't reckon that's hopping [non-proficient].'</italic> (Child 12, girl, 11 years old)</td><td>Based on children's feedback, the less proficient hopper was amended to make it clearer that the hop is attempted but a poor performance.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Moving with Equipment:</italic> Nearly all children (<italic>n</italic> = 11) had no need to hear the words to know what was happening. The youngest participant appeared uncertain about which of the two images was showing proficiency in skateboarding, but understood after listening to the wording.</td><td><italic>'Skateboarding. The one on the right [non-proficient] is better, because in the other one the knees are bent. D. shows me how to skateboard when she does her legs are straight, so I think that one [is better; non-proficient].</italic> [After hearing the associated wording] <italic>Yes, that one is better [proficient].'</italic> (Child 16, boy, 4 years old)</td><td>Slight amendments to the non-proficient skateboarder were made to improve the depiction of the image intent.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Object Manipulation:</italic> The good and a poor performance of an overarm throw was interpreted correctly by the majority of children (nine before and two after hearing the associated words). One child perceived the actions of the two images as sequential rather than as separate.</td><td><italic>'In that one [proficient], the cartoon is throwing a ball and in this one [non-proficient], the cartoon is trying to throw a ball, maybe.'</italic> (Child 17, girl, 7 year old)</td><td>A few amendments were made to the images to better differentiate the outcome of the two throws and clarify that they are separate images.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Cardiovascular Endurance:</italic> Most children (<italic>n</italic> = 11) identified this scenario as long distance running and could correctly identify the character denoting better cardiovascular endurance. One participant initially thought that the character was running in a loop and eventually got tired.</td><td><italic>'Some kids are good at running and some kids aren't?</italic> [After hearing the associated wording] <italic>You can tell that they are running for a long time because there's a long road. And you can tell that the other is getting tired.'</italic> (Child 13, girl, 8 years old)</td><td>We followed some children's suggestion to make the path longer and disappearing in the distance.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Muscular Endurance:</italic> Without listening to the associated words, only three children could interpret the images as intended. For many, the first impression was that one character could jump high and reach the bar, whereas the other could not. However, after reading the words, most children (except two) could see the images as intended.</td><td><italic>'One person [left] is good at hanging on the bar and maybe has a higher leap and is stronger. The other person [right] cannot jump that high and can't reach it.'</italic> (Child 14, boy, 11 years old)</td><td>Some changes were made to the drawings to clarify that the characters were not jumping and that one is falling.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Coordination:</italic> All children could interpret the scenario (skipping rope) as intended, with no need of the associated wording.</td><td><italic>'It looks like he's hopping – I mean skipping, sorry. And it looks like he's doing pretty good, probably better than me. And then the other one looks like he's got tangled in the line, probably like me, and it looks like he's not doing very good.'</italic> (Child 11, boy, 12 years old)</td><td>The images were not modified.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Stability / Balance:</italic> All children interpreted the balancing example as intended with or without the associated wording.</td><td><italic>'He's good at standing on the rock, and he's not so good at standing on the rock.'</italic>(Child 9, boy, 7 years old)</td><td>Although no changes were suggested by children, some members of the expert group thought a few changes could be made to improve the sense of stability in the image showing proficiency.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Flexibility:</italic> All children could interpret the provided example as intended.</td><td><italic>'Some kids are good at touching their toes and some aren't, like stretching. Or some kids are stretchier and some aren't.'</italic> (Child 1, girl, 11 years old)</td><td>No changes were made to the images.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Agility:</italic> Most children (10/12) could identify the scenario was depicting a tag game in which the character could dodge the tagger in one image (proficient example) but got caught in another image (non-proficient example).</td><td>'<italic>That person [left]is trying to run away from that person, but [in the other; right] he ran and then tagged that person.'</italic> (Child 15, boy, 6 years old).</td><td>Images not modified.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Strength:</italic> All children interpreted the scenario provided for this element (lifting a rock into a wheelbarrow) as intended before listening to the wording.</td><td><italic>'The character is lifting rocks and he lifts it off the ground. And in the other the character is lifting rocks but he can't get the rock off the ground. Maybe because it is not strong enough to carry it.'</italic> (Child 17, girl, 7 years old)</td><td>No changes were suggested by the children but a member of the expert group suggested moving the wheelbarrow closer to the character to imply that the character is going to put the rock into it.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Reaction Time:</italic> All children saw the scenario prepared for this element as intended.</td><td><italic>'The person is honking the horn, but that one [right] didn't start and the other [left] did.'</italic> (Child 15, boy, 6 years old)</td><td>Only a few changes were suggested (i.e. addition of speed lines and change of positioning of the character) to emphasise the difference between the characters starting the race at a sprint and starting the race slowly.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Speed:</italic> All children viewed the scenario depicting speed as intended, without needing to hear the associated words. One of the children appeared confused by the perspective of this element, which the child interpreted as a magic-/tele-transport through a gate.</td><td><italic>'Some people are really fast and some get left behind when it comes to the finish line.'</italic> (Child 13, girl, 8 years old).</td><td>A few changes were made to the perspective so the characters did not look like they were running through an imaginary gate.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Motivation:</italic> Most children (10/12) viewed the images as a character able to think of reasons to be active and play versus another not able to think of anything, which matched the intent description for the scenario.</td><td><italic>'Here [left] the character is thinking about lots of good things. In the other one, the character's thinking about nothing. I think that one [left] looks like he is running in the race from before. The other one he is holding a trophy and in the third one here, he's thinking a picture of muscles.</italic> [After listening to the words] <italic>I think it looks exactly like the words. It looks pretty good.'</italic> (Child 17, girl, 7 years old).</td><td>No changes made.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Self-regulation (Emotional):</italic> Most children (9/12) could identify the purpose of this scenario by simply looking at the pictures. Because of the way the target was first presented in the images (on a tripod) some children believed that the scenario was depicting a bow and arrow situation.</td><td><italic>'I see that this one [left], even though he didn't hit the target or didn't get on the board, he was like – he still wants to take another turn and he's like, oh who cares. Like it doesn't really matter. And this one, when he misses it, he's like – he just gives up and he just walks away and is just really angry.'</italic> (Child 12, girl, 11 years old).</td><td>A few changes were made to the images to better depict the essence of the dart game that can be played at home.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Self-regulation (Physical):</italic> The scenario originally depicted for this element was unclear for children (child playing on in a game even though tired), with none being able to correctly identify the purpose of the images at first sight. The scenario was often confused with an example of physical endurance or with the game context, i.e. football.</td><td><italic>He's [proficient] got more stamina, because he is sweating and he's still asking for the ball, still willing to give it a go. He's still getting active. He's [non-proficient] probably less fit he's still willing to give it a go; he's out there. He's pretty tired. It looks like he's wiping his sweat off him. Looks like a towel or something.</italic> (Child 10, boy, 12 years old)</td><td>Based on this feedback and after consultation with the expert group, it was decided to redraw the scenario entirely providing a different scenario that could better discriminate from the confounding element of physical endurance. An example of active transport (walking to school up a hill) was selected as an alternative option, with one character sprinting but having to stop half way up the hill, versus another character going at a steady pace. This scenario was tested with six children and discussed with the expert group until agreement was reached (after two further 'rough' versions) that the new scenario was a better example of physical self-regulation.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Self-perception:</italic> Three children could identify this example as intended without the words, but after hearing the words, nine of the children could understand it.</td><td><italic>'I think they are thinking about what they are doing, as in say if they are doing a cartwheel, they are thinking of the image of it, like if they were videoing it. I think this person [on the right] is saying, 'Oh my god, I am really good.'; and I think that they are not completely right, but they are trying to aim, to strive, for the highest. And this one is thinking. 'I am fine with this one, this performance.'</italic> [After the words] <italic>Oh yes, as in this person [proficient] thinks they are better than they are. And this person [not proficient] thinks they are the exact same. Yes, I see.'</italic> (Child 3, boy, 11 years old)</td><td>Minor changes made to better depict the rotating movement implied in executing a cartwheel, as this could not be clearly seen by all children.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Confidence:</italic> All children could identify the provided scenario as an example of confidence by just looking at the pictures.</td><td><italic>'They're pretty high up, judging by the ladder and the tower. And it's a zipline. So, that guy [non-confident], he is scared of heights. And he's a little bit like: 'Oh, should I do this?!' He's a bit nervous, a bit scared. And he's [confident] just fearless. He's just going straight into it.'</italic> (Child 10, boy, 12 years old)</td><td>No changes made.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Engagement and Enjoyment</italic>: All children could identify the scenario prepared for this element as intended, with just over half of them (n = 7) able to do so without hearing the associated words.</td><td><italic>'I see that this one [left] is really good at sport. He just likes getting outside and stuff and he has like a lot of equipment and stuff. But this one [right] when he gets outside, he does still have a lot of equipment but doesn't seem to try any of it, because he's like a little bit not as energetic or something, as that one. ... And this one [left]is like – he just wants to do it because it's fun.'</italic> (Child 12, girl, 11 years old) '<italic>Some kids do a lot and don't get bored easily, like a lot of energy and like to play a lot. And then some other kids don't have as much energy and it looks like they're going inside.'</italic> (Child 1, girl, 11 years old).</td><td>Since one of the images depicted the same character going through various pieces of equipment on a loop, two children suggested to make three of the character in the image a bit faded, to better evoke the idea of rotation of activities and passing time.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Connection to Place:</italic> The majority of children (10/12) could see the meaning of the images as associated with the character's ability to connect with a special place (in this example, the natural environment), which matched the intended meaning of this scenario.</td><td><italic>'A person wants to go out and play and go outside instead of like being inside and the other person is just sad and doesn't know what to do, he doesn't want to play. Well, you can really tell that he's having fun but I'd probably put maybe flowers just blooming up so you can tell that's even more like fun. And then on this I think it's good since you've got the trees far away to show that he's not really interested in them.'</italic> (Child 14, boy, 11 years old).</td><td>To further highlight the importance of the surrounding place, some changes were made to make it look like a more diverse landscape.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Ethics:</italic> Almost all the children (11/12) could identify this scenario as an example of sportsmanship, which matched with the intended image meaning.</td><td><italic>'Some people being good sports but some people are being really bad sports. One person [left] was shaking their hand when they lost, but one person [right] just walked off.'</italic> (Child 13, girl, 8 years old).</td><td>No changes made.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Relationships:</italic> This scenario appeared clear to the majority of children (11/12) at a first look, although some suggested making it more obvious that the new character is being rejected in the non-inclusive example.</td><td><italic>'He's [inclusive] inviting other people to play with him and he's [non-inclusive] not going to let anyone to play with him.</italic> [After hearing the words] <italic>It is good. Maybe this one (right) should look at them because maybe he doesn't really realise that they want to play.'</italic> (Child 9, boy, 7 years old)</td><td>Minor changes made to emphasise rejection such as the hand being held up as a stop sign in one image and the other hand of the positive image changed to 'beckon' more clearly.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Collaboration:</italic> All children could see that the scenario was depicting collaboration in building a cubby house in nature versus working alone. However, a few children noted that the character working alone also appeared nervous or sad.</td><td><italic>'I reckon that this one [left], he likes having other people to help and he's not really selfish. And this one [right], he just wants to do it by himself and he doesn't really want to go over and ask them if he can come over because he's a little bit nervous.'</italic> (Child 12, girl, 11 years old)</td><td>It was important that the image depicting collaboration was shown to be more effective (i.e. bigger better cubby), but in the other option the character did not have to be sad – hence the facial expression of the character working alone was changed to appear neutral.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Society and Culture:</italic> The majority of children (9/12) could recognise the scenario prepared for this element as intended, except for one of one participant.</td><td><italic>'In this one [left], it looks like two characters are dancing and the other character is clapping for them and, in the other one, it looks like the two characters are dancing and the other character is not clapping for them and it looks like he's going to say: 'whatever!"'</italic> (Child 17, girl, 7 years old) '<italic>I reckon that this one [left] looks that he can't join in but he's looking at them and he's really enjoying watching and congratulating them. They're doing a dance routine or something. And then here he's [right] like – he just doesn't really like watching it. He just wants to sit out and not watch the dance routine.'</italic> (Child 12, girl, 11 years old)</td><td>To ensure that children could better identify differences in background/culture, the two dances were modified to present unique features, which no other characters presented throughout the pictures.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Perceptual Awareness:</italic> The scenario chosen for this element was an active transport example (riding a bike) in which the character is paying attention and can avoid a dog coming onto the footpath and in the other image the character is unaware of the dog and seems to be about to crash. Only four children could identify this scenario initially and another four could see it after hearing the words. Some elements (e.g. another rider in the picture and the position of the dog relative to the character) appeared to have distracted children from the main intent.</td><td><italic>'In this one [left], the character is on a bike with a friend and the character is looking at a dog on the sidewalk. In the other picture, the character is on the bike with a friend and the character is not looking at the dog. I don't really get what this picture means. This is a little bit tricky to understand.</italic> [After the words] <italic>Maybe if the character and his bike were a little bit closer the dog and a little bit more this way [dog in front of the bike], he would look like he's about to bump into the dog. I think it'd look a bit better.'</italic> (Child 17, girl, 7 years old)</td><td>Based on suggestions received from the children and the expert group, the artist was asked to remove the additional rider and re-position the dog in the middle of the path.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Content Knowledge:</italic> The majority of children (11/12) could identify that the character in the classroom shows knowledge of the reasons why physical activity is good for you (in one image) and uncertainty about what those reasons might be (the other image).</td><td>'<italic>One of them [left] is putting the hand up to saying he knows the answer and he doesn't feel shy or anything. Maybe they know about being fit. They're like the arms to show what happens when you'll be fit, maybe for that you would have a bigger brain or something, and that – for you would have muscles. He [right] doesn't know what that picture means and doesn't really want to put his hand up ... '</italic> (Child 14, boy, 11 years old)</td><td>Only a slight increase in the size of the poster depicting the physical activity benefits was introduced to make that concept stand out more.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Rules:</italic> All children were able to identify the scenario showing the character bombing into a pool (breaching the rule sign showed on the wall).</td><td><italic>'They are not supposed to jump into there [pool] but that person [right] did and that person [left] didn't.'</italic> (Child 15, boy, 6 years old)</td><td>No changes were made to this scenario.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Reasoning:</italic> All children, most at first glance (8/12), could see the scenario as something related to the character's ability to identify things to do to be active indoors, when the favourite activity (play outdoor with trampoline or scooter) was not possible because of the rain. Some children did not recognise that it was raining outside.</td><td><italic>'Some people like doing handstands and some people just sit around and do nothing. Someone's looking at the window and there is ... a barbecue [referring to the trampoline]? There's a scooter. And this is some of the tree [cloud].</italic> [After the words] <italic>Oh, is it raining? Yes.'</italic> (Child 13, girl, 8 years old)</td><td>Consequently, the rain and the trampoline were made more obvious.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Strategy and Planning:</italic> The rock climbing scenario was correctly identified by all children, although this sometimes occurred after a bit of hesitation. Even though the children did not always immediately recognise the climbing wall, the image still conveyed the idea of strategy and planning.</td><td><italic>'Treasure hunt? Is he [right] doing a treasure hunt? He doesn't know what's going on. And he's [left] got a clear path of what he's doing. This guy looks like he knows what he's doing. He's mapped out what he's going to do. And this guy [right] is still scanning, looking around what he's going to do. He's confused.</italic> [After the words] <italic>Oh, it's rock climbing. Now that I look at it, it's pretty obvious.'</italic> (Child 10, boy, 12 years old)</td><td>A few changes in the perspective were made to improve the depiction of a climbing wall.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Tactics</italic>: The scenario was generally well understood by most children (83%). Some children were slightly confused about the position of another character acting as a defender, who appeared to be balancing or being hit by the ball.</td><td><italic>'Maybe this side that he passes it to his team mate and just knows instead of shooting himself and hogging himself and so using his team mate. And then that</italic> [image] <italic>say not using his team mate. You can see that his feet are over the ball and his feet – the ball is going to hit his feet and it won't go to him.</italic> [After the words] <italic>Oh, you probably need to move the ball so that it is not touching the opponent's feet.'</italic> (Child 14, boy, 11 years old)</td><td>Slight changes made to placement of the ball.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Safety and Risk:</italic> The scenario prepared for this element was unambiguously clear for all children. The notion of swimming between the flags was clearly associated with safety for these Australian children<italic>.</italic></td><td><italic>'Flags. They're running to get into water but that person [right] is going into the wrong bit. The wrong bit of the ocean. You need to play in between those flags, because that is the bit that's safe.'</italic> (Child 15, boy, 6 years old)</td><td>No changes made.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5. Final image context and wording for each physical literacy element and relevant literature that assisted in item depiction.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Physical</td><td>Context; setting; location; skill/game</td><td>Detail in image</td><td>Some children are pretty good ....</td><td>Other children are not so good ....</td><td>Wording from relevant existing instruments</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Movement Skills</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment, Playground; Hop</td><td>Child hopping well vs child hopping poorly (Barnett et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2015</xref>)</td><td>'at hopping'</td><td>'at hopping'</td><td>Self-report: ' ... pretty good at hopping' (Barnett et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Moving with equipment</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment, Playground; Skateboard</td><td>Child skateboarding well vs child skateboarding poorly</td><td>'at skateboarding'</td><td>'at skateboarding'</td><td>Self-report: ' ... pretty good at ... ' (Barnett et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2016b</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Object Manipulation</td><td>Land; Play; Home, Backyard; Overarm Throw</td><td>Child overarm throwing well vs child hopping poorly (Barnett et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2015</xref>)</td><td>'at overarm throwing'</td><td>'at overarm throwing'</td><td>Self-report: ' ... pretty good at throwing a ball' (Barnett et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Cardiovascular Endurance</td><td>Land; Structured; Sport; Park; Run</td><td>Child looking energetic in cross country race vs child looking exhausted and slow (Missiuna, Pollock, Law, Walter and Cavey <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2006</xref>; Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td><td>'at running for a long time without getting tired'</td><td>'at running for a long time without getting tired'</td><td>Self-report: ' ... pretty good at running for a long time' (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Muscular Endurance</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment; Playground; Arm Hang- Static</td><td>Child hanging on climbing bar frame for a long time vs child letting go</td><td>'at hanging for a long time without letting go'</td><td>'at hanging for a long time without letting go'</td><td>Self-report: 'Can you keep playing harder things just for fun?' (Sturgess and Ziviani <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">1996</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment; Playground; Rope skipping</td><td>Child doing lots of jumps vs child getting leg caught in rope</td><td>'at doing lots of jumps with a skipping rope without getting a leg caught'</td><td>'at doing lots of jumps with a skipping rope and get a leg caught'</td><td>Self-report: ' ... pretty good at doing two things at the same time like running and bouncing the ball' (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Stability/Balance</td><td>Land; Play; Nature; Balance on one foot on a rock</td><td>Child balancing well with one leg on a rock vs child wobbling on rock</td><td>'at balancing on a rock and not wobbling'</td><td>'at balancing on a rock and start to wobble'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>Land; Structured; Physical Education; School hall; Touch toes (sitting)</td><td>Child touching toes with fingers and straight legs vs child reaching only as far as knees (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td><td>'at touching their toes without bending their knees'</td><td>'at touching their toes and bend their knees'</td><td>' ... pretty good at bending forwards' (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Agility</td><td>Land; Structured; Physical Education; Playground; Dodging around other players in game</td><td>Child dodging others in tag game vs child getting tagged</td><td>'at dodging other kids in a game'</td><td>'at dodging other kids in a game'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Strength</td><td>Land; Play; Home; Backyard; Lifting heavy rocks in garden</td><td>Child in garden lifting a heavy rock vs child not able to pick rock up</td><td>'when strong muscles are needed, like when picking up a big rock'</td><td>'when strong muscles are needed, like when picking up a big rock'</td><td>' ... can lift heavy things pretty easily' (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Reaction Time</td><td>Land; Structured; Sport; School oval; Run Race</td><td>Child starts running at sound of starter gun vs child slower than the gun</td><td>'at running straight away when they hear the starting gun'</td><td>'at running straight away when they hear the starting gun'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Speed</td><td>Land; Structured; Sport; School Oval; Run race</td><td>Child winning race vs child coming towards end of race (Harter and Pike <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">1984</xref>)</td><td>'at running very fast'</td><td>'at running very fast'</td><td>' ... at running fast' (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Psychological</bold></td><td><bold>Context; Setting; Location; Skill/Game</bold></td><td><bold>Detail in image</bold></td><td><bold>Some children feel ....</bold></td><td><bold>Other children do not feel ....</bold></td><td><bold>Wording from relevant existing instruments</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Motivation</td><td>Land; General; Unspecified</td><td>Child with thought bubbles signifying several motivations for activity (i.e. because it is 'good for you' and 'fun', winning 'reward' and 'trophy') vs child not seeing reasons to be active</td><td>'feel like being active and playing sport whenever they can, for lots of reasons'</td><td>'Other children do not find any good reasons for being active and playing sport'</td><td>'Some kids try to take part in energetic physical exercise whenever they can, BUT other kids try to avoid doing energetic exercise if they can' (J. R. Whitehead <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">1995</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation (emotions)</td><td>Land; Structured; Sport; Backyard; Darts</td><td>Child looking cross when they miss the target vs child controlling their feelings</td><td>'they can control their disappointment when they miss the target'</td><td>'they can control their disappointment when they miss the target'</td><td>Impulse subscale: 'When I'm upset I have difficulty controlling my behaviour' (Kaufman et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation (physical)</td><td>Land; General; Active transport; Footpath; Walking to school uphill<sup>#</sup></td><td>Child who understands how to pace themselves to get to the top of a hill vs child who rushes half way up and then has to slow down</td><td>'they can pace themselves to get up the top of a hill'</td><td>'they can pace themselves to get up the top of a hill'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Self-perception</td><td>Land; Play; Home; Backyard</td><td>Child doing a poor performance of a cartwheel and understanding through a thought bubble that it is a poor performance vs a child doing a poor performance who thinks they are doing a good performance (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>).</td><td>'they have a pretty good idea of what they are able to do' (Tietjens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2018</xref>)</td><td>'Other children sometimes think they are better than what they are'</td><td>None located.</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence</td><td>Land; Play; Nature; Playground; Zip-line</td><td>Child trying an experience like a zip-line vs child not being willing to try</td><td>'they are confident to try new active things, like taking off on a zip-line'</td><td>'they are confident trying new active things, like taking off on a zip-line'</td><td>'This child likes to try new things on the playground' (Sturgess and Ziviani, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">1996</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Engagement and Enjoyment</td><td>Land; Play; Home; Street/Multiple games</td><td>Child engaged in lots of different activities (shooting hoops, skipping, scooter) in front yard looking happy vs child looking bored and walking away</td><td>'like being active in lots of different ways – because they enjoy it'</td><td>'like being active in lots of different ways – because they don't enjoy it'</td><td>'Some kids can't wait to play active games after school but other kids would rather do something else' (Hay <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">1992</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Connection to place</td><td>Land; Play; Nature</td><td>Child who can find a special place in nature vs child unsure of where to play /go</td><td>'they have favourite places to hang out and play'</td><td>'they have favourite places to hang out and play'</td><td>'What is your favourite place/ what kind of place is it?' (Korpela <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">1989</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Social</bold></td><td><bold>Context; Setting; Location; Skill/Game</bold></td><td><bold>Detail in image</bold></td><td><bold>Some children want ....</bold></td><td><bold>Other children do not want ....</bold></td><td><bold>Wording from relevant existing instruments</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Ethics</td><td>Land; Structured; Sport; School Oval; Soccer</td><td>Child shakes hand to children at end of game vs child who walks away without shaking hands</td><td>'to shake hands with kids from the other team after a game they have lost'</td><td>'to shake hands with kids from the other team after a game they have lost'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Relationships</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment; Playground; Four Square</td><td>Child offering for child to join ball game vs child not welcoming child to join game</td><td>'to invite other kids to play with them'</td><td>'to invite other kids to play with them'</td><td>'..gets asked to play with the other kids' (Harter and Pike <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">1984</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Collaboration</td><td>Land; Play; Nature; Cubby building</td><td>Child in a group with others building a cubby that is progressing well vs child on their own building a cubby that is not progressing as well</td><td>'to join in an activity or game where you can work together'</td><td>'to join in an activity or game where you can work together'</td><td>'Can you join kids who are already playing?' 'Can you mostly play with others and help sort out arguments?' (Sturgess and Ziviani, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">1996</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Society and Culture</td><td>Land; Structured/ Physical Education; School Hall; Dance unfamiliar</td><td>Child looking interested/ clapping at children doing unfamiliar dances vs child turning away</td><td>'to learn about activities and games from other places and people'</td><td>'to learn about activities and games from other places and people'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td><bold>COGNITIVE</bold></td><td><bold>Context; Setting; Location; Skill/Game</bold></td><td><bold>Detail in image</bold></td><td><bold>Some children think ....</bold></td><td><bold>Other children do not think ....</bold></td><td><bold>Wording from relevant existing instruments</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Perceptual Awareness</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment; Bike track</td><td>Child cycling and being aware of a dog about to run into their path vs a child who is unaware of what is around them and likely to run into the dog</td><td>'they can ride and notice what could be in their way'</td><td>'they can ride and notice what could be in their way'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Content knowledge</td><td>Land; Structured; Classroom; Lesson</td><td>Child with thought bubbles showing benefits of physical to the heart, brain etc. vs child looking unsure with one thought bubble</td><td>'of many reasons why physical activity is good for you'</td><td>'of many reasons why physical activity is good for you'</td><td>'Physical activity importance' (Longmuir, Woodruff, Boyer, Lloyd, and Tremblay <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Rules</td><td>Water; Play; Built Environment; Swimming pool; Bombing in pool</td><td>Clear sign saying bombing not allowed. Child obeys sign and steps in vs child does bomb in pool.</td><td>'about following rules – like not to do a bomb in a pool'</td><td>'about following rules and would do a bomb in a pool'</td><td>'To obey the rules' (Döring et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2010</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Reasoning</td><td>Land; Play; House</td><td>Child looking outside at backyard in the rain and decides to play actively indoors vs child who is unsure what to do next</td><td>'of a similar physical activity to do, if their favourite activity is not possible'</td><td>'of a similar physical activity to do, if their favourite activity is not possible'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Strategy and planning</td><td>Land; Play; Built Environment; Playground; Rock climbing</td><td>Child climbing and reasoning through the route looking ahead to where they are going vs child getting stuck looking into wall</td><td>'about which way is going to be the best when they climb up'</td><td>'about which way is going to be the best when they climb – and they get stuck'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Tactics</td><td>Land; Structured; Sport; Netball Court; Netball</td><td>Child leading into space to create an option for a pass vs child standing still behind defender waiting for pass</td><td>'about how to be in the right spot so the ball is passed to them'</td><td>'about how to be in the right spot so the ball is passed to them'</td><td>None located</td></tr><tr><td>Safety and Risk</td><td>Water; Play; Nature; Beach; Swim between flags</td><td>Child going between flags vs child going to another part of water to swim</td><td>'about where it is safe to swim before they go in the water'</td><td>'about where it is safe to swim before they go in the water'</td><td>'To be safe' (Döring et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2010</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The sex analysis showed 49% of character mentions in Phase 2 were neutral, with girls more likely than boys to refer to the character as neutral (56.7% compared to 45.7%, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 18.16, <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001, 95% CI 5.95, 15.96). A similar proportion of character mentions (48%) were male, with more boys doing so than girls (50% compared with 43%, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 7.36, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0067, 95% CI 1.94, 11.97). More boys spoke of the character as female (4% to 0.4%, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 16.96, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, 95% CI 2.23, 4.85), see Table 6.</p> <p>Table 6. Analysis of children's responses (Phase 2) in relation to the main character's gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Child sex</td><td>Total</td><td>Neutral</td><td>%</td><td>Male</td><td>%</td><td>Female</td><td>%</td><td>Both</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Boy</td><td char=".">1291</td><td char=".">590</td><td char=".">45.7</td><td char=".">644</td><td char=".">49.9</td><td char=".">52</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Girl</td><td char=".">529</td><td char=".">300</td><td char=".">56.7</td><td char=".">227</td><td char=".">42.9</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0.4</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td char=".">1820</td><td char=".">890</td><td char=".">48.9</td><td char=".">871</td><td char=".">47.9</td><td char=".">54</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">0.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0153952168-21">Discussion</hd> <p>This paper has detailed the development of a pictorial measurement instrument to assess children's self-perceived physical literacy. To the authors' knowledge, it is the most comprehensive child self-report physical literacy instrument to date, spanning the full range of 30 physical literacy elements identified as comprising physical literacy as defined by the APLF. Most existing physical literacy instruments focus more on objective measures in the physical domain (Edwards et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref73">17</reflink>]; Kaioglou and Venetsanou [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]). The few child and adolescent self-report tools of physical literacy do not focus on all four domains of physical literacy and have fewer elements within each domain (Cairney et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref75">12</reflink>]; Sum et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref76">45</reflink>]) so therefore are not useful in capturing physical literacy in its entirety.</p> <p>A rigorous development process was followed, with input from experts and children conveyed to the artist, who in turn advised researchers on artistic considerations. The final images were understood by nearly all children (either before or after hearing the words that accompanied the images) showing good evidence of the intended meanings of the constructs being captured in the images. The majority of the elements (<emph>n</emph> = 22) were better understood once children had heard the accompanying words, although, children understood the intent of five of the elements without the accompanying words: three in the physical domain (strength, speed and coordination), one in the psychological (confidence), and one in the cognitive domain (rules). Three elements proved a little more difficult for some children to understand (perceptual awareness, self-regulation-physical and self-perception). This is not surprising as these three elements are all abstract concepts and thus it might be expected children would find these concepts harder to understand. In particular, the element perceptual awareness was more challenging for children to grasp, although the team are confident that this scenario is now much clearer after being redrawn following child feedback. Another picture-based scale that requires children to report on abstract content (e.g. values such as conformity) also reported a rigorous process of seeking expert and child reflections to ensure that children understood the intent of the pictures (Döring et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref77">15</reflink>]). Authors reported in their first study that some of the abstract notions had inconsistent interpretations by children, so captions were added to their pictures to aid clarity of interpretation (Döring et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref78">15</reflink>]). Other studies reporting on the development of pictorial instruments either do not report the actual process and outcome of testing images with children (Harter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>]) or do not appear to have tested the images with children (Parrish et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref80">42</reflink>]). An exception is the development of the pictorial scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence (PMSC) which involved cognitive interviewing with children, as part of face validity, to test if children understood the intent of the images (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>]; Moulton et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref82">38</reflink>]). Although, the PMSC scale is simpler than the current scale as it only pertains to the physical competence part of physical literacy (i.e. how good you are at certain skills), and as such, the phrasing of the items does not change throughout the scale. The PL-C Quest changes the item stem for each domain and, in some cases, requires children to comment on abstract notions – such as tactics and collaboration, meaning testing with children was of even more importance.</p> <p>We aimed to create a character that was gender neutral. This was more challenging than the team first envisioned. Cartoons, comics and publishing for children tend to be strictly gendered, and as such, designing characters as obviously 'male' and 'female' is an industry norm (Thompson and Zerbinos [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]) (e.g. Daisy Duck is the same design as Donald but with additional 'female' props like eyelashes and hair bow). This long history presented the artist with some challenges in designing a relatable yet gender-less character. The character which was chosen was the one that most children identified as gender neutral. When we assessed gender perception in phase 2 by recording how children spoke about the character we found similar proportions identified the character as neutral and as male. The English language does not have a gender-neutral singular pronoun so a 'he' or 'she' is typically chosen, and because words pertaining to 'man' are commonly used to refer to humans in general, this will typically be a male pronoun (Crawford [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref84">13</reflink>]). As such, considering the nature of gendered language, the fact around half of the children viewed the character as neutral, we would suggest, is a positive finding. Girls appeared more likely to refer to the character as neutral and boys appeared more likely to refer to it as male or female which indicates gendered differences in character identification which could be investigated in future research.</p> <p>Another stated aim was for the character to not represent a particular race or ethnicity. This was another reason why the bunny character was selected and not the humanoid shape, as once the image is humanoid; the viewer starts to ascribe a racial profile. Consider, the cartoon character Bart Simpson. Even though he has been described as having ' ... no history to bind him to a particular race or class or ethnicity..' (Herron [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref85">26</reflink>], 19), the same author also noted that members of the African-American community have produced a black face version of Bart. In this study, while children did attribute personality traits to the character (i.e. sneaky, curious), they did not ascribe any particular ethnicity.</p> <p>While the process to develop this instrument was comprehensive, this was just the start of instrument testing. In accordance with the validity testing framework of the <emph>Standards</emph>, evaluation of evidence based on five sources is required to argue for the credibility of the intended data interpretation and use (American Educational Research Association et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]). Evidence for the content of the PL-C Quest and for how a sample of the intended respondents understand and process that content (evidence based on response processes) have been presented. Further research is needed to assess the internal structure of the instrument to determine if the elements fit within the four hypothesised domains and if these domains load onto the higher-order construct of physical literacy, as well as testing of the PL-C Quest with instruments that measure other variables. For example, an important area of research will be to determine whether the PL-C Quest can predict a relationship between perceived physical literacy and physical activity behaviour (Bremer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>]). The PL-C Quest was developed to inform decisions about programs and interventions for individual children and groups of children (e.g. within schools), and about policies for populations of children (e.g. across schools regionally or nationally). Thus, an argument for the validity of the data for this purpose must be supported by an evaluation of a range of different sources of evidence.</p> <p>An important strength of this study is that the development of this new instrument is situated within an authoritative theoretical validity testing framework that supports a transparent validation plan (Hawkins, Elsworth, and Osborne [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]; American Educational Research Association et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]). Also, the instrument is based on the comprehensive APLF that includes elements that were previously not measured. Furthermore, there was much attention paid to the ethnicity and gender identity of the character developed for the instrument, in line with the recent Australian school gender identity policy. A limitation to this study is that Australia is a multicultural society but the sample of children in this initial validity testing study had a narrow range of cultural backgrounds and English was their first language. Also, the sample had highly educated parents, although children did show a range of physical activity levels. Therefore, further testing with diverse samples of children would provide data about the validity of data in different educational or cultural settings and, potentially, developmental differences across ages. Lastly, our sample included more children aged 9–12 years, compared to children aged 8 years old and less, so future research may wish to investigate reliability and validity in this younger age group.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>Sport Australia's APLF is a comprehensive holistic physical literacy framework. Measurement of perceived physical literacy can support evidence-based decisions by educators and policy makers to develop programs and policies that can improve physical literacy outcomes in Australian children. It can also inform whether existing or new programs aimed at improving physical literacy are effective. This study has provided qualitative evidence based on the content of the PL-C Quest elements and domains, on the ways respondents understand, and interpret the items to provide a strong foundation for future quantitative studies to test the instrument's psychometric properties. This study is the first step towards the development and testing of a pictorial instrument to comprehensibly measure children's self-perceived physical literacy.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Sport Australia provided the funding for this project. Thank you to the children and their parents who participated in this research.</p> <hd id="AN0153952168-24">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0153952168-25"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Since this paper was accepted, two items with an ice and snow context have been created that can be swapped for two existing items so the scale can be used to assess children in colder countries.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0153952168-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2017. "2016 Census: Multicultural.".</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Babic, Mark J., Philip J. Morgan, Ronald C. Plotnikoff, Chris Lonsdale, Rhiannon L. White, and David R. Lubans. 2014. " Physical Activity and Physical Self-Concept in Youth: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Sports Medicine 44 (11): 1589 – 1601. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0229-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bardid, F., G. Vannozzi, Samuel W. Logan, L. L. Hardy, and Lisa M. Barnett. 2019. " A Hitchhiker's Guide to Assessing Young People's Motor Competence: Deciding What Method to Use." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (3): 311 – 318. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.08.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, Lisa M., Dean A. Dudley, Richard D. Telford, David R. Lubans, Anna S. Bryant, William M. Roberts, Philip J. Morgan, et al. 2019. " Guidelines for the Selection of Physical Literacy Measures in Physical Education in Australia." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 38 (2): 119 – 125. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, Lisa M., Nicola D. Ridgers, Kylie Hesketh, and Jo Salmon. 2017. " Setting Them up for Lifetime Activity: Play Competence Perceptions and Physical Activity in Young Children." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 20 (9): 856 – 860. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.03.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref33" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, Lisa M., Nicola D. Ridgers, Avigdor Zask, and Jo Salmon. 2015. " Face Validity and Reliability of a Pictorial Instrument for Assessing Fundamental Movement Skill Perceived Competence in Young Children." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 18 (1): 98 – 102. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref23" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, Lisa M., Jo Salmon, and Kylie D. Hesketh. 2016a. " More Active pre-School Children Have Better Motor Competence at School Starting Age: An Observational Cohort Study." BMC Public Health 16 (1): 1068. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3742-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, Lisa M., D. F. Stodden, R. M. Hulteen, and R. S. Sacko. 2020. " 19: Motor Proficiency Assessment." In The Routledge Handbook of Pediatric Physical Activity, edited by Timothy A. Brusseau, 384 – 408. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, Lisa M., S. Vazou, G. Abbott, S. J. Bowe, L. E. Robinson, N. D. Ridgers, and J. Salmon. 2016b. " Construct Validity of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 22 : 294 – 302. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.09.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnett, L. M., S. Vazou, G. Abbott, S. J. Bowe, L. E. Robinson, N. D. Ridgers, and J. Salmon. 2016. " Construct Validity of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 22 : 294 – 302. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.09.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bremer, E, J. D. Graham, C. Bedard, C. Rodriguez, D. Kriellaars, and J. Cairney. 2020. " The Association Between PLAYfun and Physical Activity: A Convergent Validation Study." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 91 (2): 179 – 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cairney, John, Scott Veldhuizen, Jeffrey D Graham, Christine Rodriguez, Chloe Bedard, Emily Bremer, and Dean Kriellaars. 2018. " A Construct Validation Study of PLAYfun." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 50 (4): 855 – 862.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crawford, Mary. 2001. " Gender and Language." Handbook of the Psychology of Women and Gender, 228 – 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Meester, An, Jolien Maes, David Stodden, Greet Cardon, Jacqueline Goodway, Matthieu Lenoir, and Leen Haerens. 2016. " Identifying Profiles of Actual and Perceived Motor Competence among Adolescents: Associations with Motivation, Physical Activity, and Sports Participation." Journal of Sports Sciences 34 (21): 2027 – 2037. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1149608.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Döring, Anna K., Andrea Blauensteiner, Katrin Aryus, Lisa Drögekamp, and Wolfgang Bilsky. 2010. " Assessing Values at an Early Age: The Picture-Based Value Survey for Children (PBVS–C)." Journal of Personality Assessment 92 (5): 439 – 448. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.497423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Economos, Christina D, Erin Hennessy, Jennifer M Sacheck, M. Kyla Shea, and Elena N Naumova. 2010. " Development and Testing of the BONES Physical Activity Survey for Young Children." BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 11 (1): 195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, Lowri C., Anna S. Bryant, Richard J. Keegan, Kevin Morgan, Stephen-Mark Cooper, and Anwen M. Jones. 2018. " 'Measuring' Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings." Sports Medicine 48 (3): 659 – 682. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, Lowri C., Anna S. Bryant, Richard J. Keegan, Kevin Morgan, and Anwen M. Jones. 2017. " Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review." Sports Medicine 47 (1): 113 – 126. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Famelia, Ruri, Emi Tsuda, Syahrial Bakhtiar, and Jacqueline D. Goodway. 2018. " Relationships Among Perceived and Actual Motor Skill Competence and Physical Activity in Indonesian Preschoolers." 6 (s2): S403. doi: 10.1123/jmld.2016-0072.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, K. R., and C. B. Corbin. 1989. " The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and Preliminary Validation." Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11 : 408 – 430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, N. R., W. M. Roberts, D. Sheehan, and R. J. Keegan. 2018. " Charting physical literacy journeys within physical education settings." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37 (3): 272 – 279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter, S., and R. Pike. 1984. " The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children." Child Development 55. doi: 10.2307/1129772.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins, Melanie, Gerald R. Elsworth, and Richard H. Osborne. 2018. " Application of Validity Theory and Methodology to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Building an Argument for Validity." Quality of Life Research 27 (7): 1695 – 1710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins, Melanie, Gerald R. Elsworth, and Richard H. Osborne. 2019. " Questionnaire Validation Practice: A Protocol for a Systematic Descriptive Literature Review of Health Literacy Assessments." BMJ Open 9 (10): e030753. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030753.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hay, J. A.. 1992. " Adequacy in and Predilection for Physical Activity." Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 2 (3): 192 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herron, Jerry. 1993. " Homer Simpson's Eyes and the Culture of Late Nostalgia." Representations 43 : 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulteen, R. M., L. M. Barnett, L. True, N. J. Lander, B. del Pozo-Cruz, and C. Lonsdale. 2020. " Validity and Reliability Evidence for Motor Competence Assessments in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review." Journal of Sports Sciences 38 (15): 1717 – 1798.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IPLA (International Physical Literacy Association). 2017. https://<ulink href="http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk">www.physical-literacy.org.uk</ulink> /.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, and Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Psychological Testing. 2014. National Council on Measurement in Education Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaioglou, Vasiliki, and Fotini Venetsanou. 2020. " How Can We Assess Physical Literacy in Gymnastics? A Critical Review of Physical Literacy Assessment Tools." Science of Gymnastics Journal 12 (1).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, E, M. Xia, G. Fosco, M. Yaptangco, C. R. Skidmore, and S. R. Crowell. 2016. " The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): Validation and Replication in Adolescent and Adult Samples." Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 38 (3): 443 – 455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keegan, Richard J, Lisa M Barnett, and D. A. Dudley. 2017. Physical Literacy: Informing a Definition and Standard for Australia. Canberra : Australian Government, Australian Sports Commission.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keegan, Richard J, Dean A Dudley, and Lisa M. Barnett. 2019. " A Brief History of Physical Literacy in Australia." In Physical Literacy Across the World, 105 – 124. Canberra : Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korpela, K. M. 1989. " Place-identity as a Product of Environmental Self-regulation." Journal of Environmental Psychology 9 (3): 241 – 256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longmuir, P. E., S. F. Woodruff, C. Boyer, M. Lloyd, and M. S. Tremblay. 2018. " Physical Literacy Knowledge Questionnaire: Feasibility, Validity, and Reliability for Canadian Children Aged 8 to 12 Years." BMC Public Health 18 (2): 1035. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5890-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. W., G. E. Richards, S. Johnson, L. Roche, and P. Tremayne. 1994. " Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties and Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis of Relations to Existing Instruments." Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 16 : 270 – 305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Missiuna, C., N. Pollock, M. Law, S. Walter, and N. Cavey. 2006. " Examination of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS) with Children with Disabilities, Their Parents, and Teachers." American Journal of Occupational Therapy 60 (2): 204 – 214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moulton, J. M., C. Cole, N. D. Ridgers, G. Pepin, and Lisa M. Barnett. 2018. " Measuring Movement Skill Perceptions in Preschool Children: A Face Validity and Reliability Study." Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murcia, Juan Antonio Moreno, and Luis Miguel Ruiz Pérez. 2008. " Aquatic Perceived Competence in Children: Development and Preliminary Validation of a Pictorial Scale." International Journal of Aquatic Research & Education 2 (4): 313 – 329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, Richard H, Roy W Batterham, Gerald R Elsworth, Melanie Hawkins, and Rachelle Buchbinder. 2013. " The Grounded Psychometric Development and Initial Validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)." BMC Public Health 13 (1): 658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen, K. B., J. Smith, D. R. Lubans, J. Y. Ng, and C. Lonsdale. 2014. " Self-determined Motivation and Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Preventive Medicine 67 : 270 – 279. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.07.033.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parrish, Anne-Maree, Don Iverson, Ken Russell, and Heather Yeatman. 2010. " The Development of a Unique Physical Activity Self-Report for Young Children: Challenges and Lessons Learned." Research in Sports Medicine 18 (1): 71 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sport Australia. 2020. Australian Physical Literacy Framework. Canberra : Australian Government.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sturgess, J., and J. Ziviani. 1996. " A Self-report Play Skills Questionnaire: Technical Development." Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 43 (3--4): 142 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sum, Raymond K. W., Chih-Fu Cheng, Tristan Wallhead, Che-Chun Kuo, Fong-Jia Wang, and Siu-Ming Choi. 2018. " Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument for Adolescents: A Further Validation of PPLI." Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness 16 (1): 26 – 31. doi: 10.1016/j.jesf.2018.03.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Telford, Amanda, Jo Salmon, Damien Jolley, and David Crawford. 2004. " Reliability and Validity of Physical Activity Questionnaires for Children: The Children's Leisure Activities Study Survey (CLASS)." Pediatric Exercise Science 16 (1): 64 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, Teresa L, and Eugenia Zerbinos. 1995. " Gender Roles in Animated Cartoons: Has the Picture Changed in 20 Years? " Sex Roles 32 (9-10): 651 – 673.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tietjens, Maike, Dennis Dreiskaemper, Till Utesch, Nadja Schott, Lisa M. Barnett, and Trina Hinkley. 2018. " Pictorial Scale of Physical Self-Concept for Younger Children (P-PSC-C): A Feasibility Study." Journal of Motor Learning and Development 6 (s2): S391 – S402. doi: 10.1123/jmld.2016-0088.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tremblay, M., and Meghann Lloyd. 2010. " Physical Literacy Measurement – The Missing Piece." Physical and Health Education Journal 76 (1): 26 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valla, Jean-Pierre, Lise Bergeron, Huguette Bérubé, Nathalie Gaudet, and Marie St-Georges. 1994. " A Structured Pictorial Questionnaire to Assess DSM-III-R-Based Diagnoses in Children (6–11 Years): Development, Validity, and Reliability." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 22 (4): 403 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Victorian State Government. 2019. "School Policy Gender Identity." State Government of Victoria. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/health/Pages/genderidentity.aspx">www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/health/Pages/genderidentity.aspx</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, Margaret. 1990. " Meaningful Existence, Embodiment and Physical Education." Journal of Philosophy of Education 24 (1): 3 – 14. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.1990.tb00219.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, J. R. 1995. " A Study of Children's Physical Self-perceptions Using an Adapted Physical Self-perception Questionnaire." Pediatric Exercise Science 7 : 133 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, Margaret. 2001. " The Concept of Physical Literacy." European Journal of Physical Education 6 (2): 127 – 138. doi: 10.1080/1740898010060205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, Margaret. 2007. " Physical Literacy: Philosophical Considerations in Relation to Developing a Sense of Self, Universality and Propositional Knowledge." Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (3): 281 – 298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, Margaret. 2019. Physical Literacy Across the World. Edited by Margaret Whitehead. 1st ed. London : Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lisa M. Barnett; Emiliano Mazzoli; Melanie Hawkins; Natalie Lander; David R. Lubans; Sallee Caldwell; Pierre Comis; Richard J. Keegan; John Cairney; Dean Dudley; Rebecca L. Stewart; Gareth Long; Natasha Schranz; Trent D. Brown and Jo Salmon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref88"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1323388
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development of a Self-Report Scale to Assess Children's Perceived Physical Literacy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barnett%2C+Lisa+M%2E%22">Barnett, Lisa M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9731-625X">0000-0002-9731-625X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mazzoli%2C+Emiliano%22">Mazzoli, Emiliano</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9207-4167">0000-0002-9207-4167</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hawkins%2C+Melanie%22">Hawkins, Melanie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5704-0490">0000-0001-5704-0490</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lander%2C+Natalie%22">Lander, Natalie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0279-3724">0000-0002-0279-3724</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lubans%2C+David+R%2E%22">Lubans, David R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0204-8257">0000-0002-0204-8257</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caldwell%2C+Sallee%22">Caldwell, Sallee</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Comis%2C+Pierre%22">Comis, Pierre</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Keegan%2C+Richard+J%2E%22">Keegan, Richard J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-4492">0000-0003-4253-4492</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cairney%2C+John%22">Cairney, John</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2856-3967">0000-0003-2856-3967</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dudley%2C+Dean%22">Dudley, Dean</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5140-9533">0000-0001-5140-9533</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stewart%2C+Rebecca+L%2E%22">Stewart, Rebecca L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Long%2C+Gareth%22">Long, Gareth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schranz%2C+Natasha%22">Schranz, Natasha</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7022-9228">0000-0002-7022-9228</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brown%2C+Trent+D%2E%22">Brown, Trent D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salmon%2C+Jo%22">Salmon, Jo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4734-6354">0000-0002-4734-6354</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2022 27(1):91-116.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement+Techniques%22">Measurement Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept+Measures%22">Self Concept Measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Literacies%22">Multiple Literacies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychomotor+Skills%22">Psychomotor Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activity+Level%22">Physical Activity Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pictorial+Stimuli%22">Pictorial Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex%22">Sex</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Race%22">Race</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Responses%22">Responses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1849596
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The construct of physical literacy is gaining traction internationally and yet measurement of physical literacy is in its infancy. This paper describes the development of a pictorial child report scale of perceived physical literacy based on the comprehensive Australian Physical Literacy Framework, which includes 30 elements within four domains (physical, psychological, cognitive and social). Methods: An expert reference committee with academic and industry representatives from physical education, sport and education was formed to provide input to each stage of the process. Qualitative research methods were used to (a) determine a character that was gender neutral, not representative of a particular race or ethnicity and appealing to children, and (b) the content (i.e. relationship between item images, wording and format with the intended construct) and response processes (i.e. interpretation of items) of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest). A total of 17 children aged 4-12 years were interviewed as part of the study. Results: A 'bunny' character was preferred by children. Overall, children interpreted most images as intended by the researchers, and, in many cases, without having to hear the words that went with the images. Some of the image scenarios were amended and redrawn according to the suggestions received from children and the expert reference group. Discussion: This study has provided qualitative evidence based on the content of the PL-C Quest elements and domains, on the ways respondents understand, and interpret the items. This is the first step towards the development and testing of a pictorial instrument to comprehensively measure children's self-perceived physical literacy.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1323388
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1323388
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1849596
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 91
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Measurement Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Literacies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychomotor Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activity Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pictorial Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Responses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development of a Self-Report Scale to Assess Children's Perceived Physical Literacy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barnett, Lisa M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mazzoli, Emiliano
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hawkins, Melanie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lander, Natalie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lubans, David R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Caldwell, Sallee
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Comis, Pierre
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Keegan, Richard J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cairney, John
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dudley, Dean
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stewart, Rebecca L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Long, Gareth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schranz, Natasha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brown, Trent D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salmon, Jo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1